Okay. "Intelligent Design" is technically plausible, just valueless. It is trivially true that a designing agent may be responsible for the earliest form(s) of life on earth, but the mechanism by which that life continued and changed is evolution.
Insofar as there may have been a designing agent to have seeded this planet, assigning any attributes to such a thing is as much a waste of time as Theism at-large; there are an infinite combination of ways in which such a designing agent could potentially manifest itself or otherwise exist, and absent access to such an agent, the speculation is useless.
Why do I call it a "designing agent" rather than an "intelligent designer"? Simple. It needn't be 'intelligent' at all -- an ant can design, and construct a nest or bridge, a bee can design and construct a hive, a bird can design and construct a nest, and a beaver can design and construct a dam. Despite the ability to design and construct things, however, the thing doing the designing and/or constructing needn't actually be aware of just what, or how, it is doing the designing. That is, it needn't actually be intelligent.
Furthermore, in order to construct something, no matter the design, one must first have materials, which are not included in the ID discussion. While life itself may have been "seeded," or sprung from a small set of designed organisms, the source(s) of materials is not explained in any fashion whatsoever by ID, just like the source(s) of materials is not explained by the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, ID is really quite separate from the ToE in that ID seems to focus on abiogenesis, whereas the ToE focuses on diversification following abiogenesis.
So yeah, ID may have some merit, but it's devoid of value in the big picture, since without information concerning the designing agent, we're left to speculate as to how and/or why. By ignoring this possibility, and instead focusing on the mechanism for abiogenesis, we may yet answer the former question, even if we are unable to determine the answer to the latter. All ID does is to unnecessarily add a layer of complexity; even if we assumed there was a designing agent, we'd want to know how it designed, and how it formed. Naturally, ID can lead to an infinite regress of higher order designing agents, so again, the idea is better dropped than pursued -- especially when there is no evidence whatsoever that a designing agent exists.
That's right. There's no evidence of a designing agent. All we have is evidence of existence, evidence of process, and speculation as to motive or means beyond the processes already discovered.
Essentially, ID is as worthless as geocentrism. Geocentrism is plausible, as it is one of an infinite number of perfectly legitimate reference frames available to calculate celestial position, but it is ultimately worthless. It adds tremendous complexity...
[Don't believe me? Try calculating the relative position of Europa on New Year's Day 2010 by assuming the earth is stationary, versus attempting the same calculation by first assuming the sun is stationary, and then adjusting for the apparent position relative to the earth.]
...which is completely unnecessary, and which, when removed, greatly simplifies explanations, and allows for greater understanding, as through the development of Newton's [incorrect] Law of Universal Gravitation, and subsequent theories pertaining to gravity.
[Want a tougher example? Try to calculate the position of Europa on (Earth's) New Year's Day 2010 relative to the position of Titan, by assuming that Titan remains stationary.]
By dismissing geocentrism, or at least operating under the assumption that it is incorrect, we gained greater understanding regarding the motion of celestial bodies. By likewise dismissing ID, or at least operating under the assumption that it is incorrect, we can likewise gain greater understanding regarding the origin(s) of life.
By likewise dismissing ID, or at least operating under the assumption that it is incorrect, we can likewise gain greater understanding regarding the origin(s) of life.
Since ID is childish bullshit, it's pretty darn easy to dismiss it, unless of course a person is a Christian retard.
We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith.
Translation:
WE ARE MORONS.
To be fair, Dan is using the royal "we."
Since ID is childish bullshit, it's pretty darn easy to dismiss it, unless of course a person is a Christian retard.
While I may agree with your sentiment, your statement is demonstrably false. It is actively pursued by adults, not children, and one needn't be either a Christian or a retard, much less both, to be its advocate. Of course, most of its advocates aim for greatness, and therefore embrace both Christianity and retardation...
Why do I call it a "designing agent" rather than an "intelligent designer"?
Designing agent = magic god fairy.
Intelligent designer = magic god fairy.
Why use the same terminology idiots use? Call it what it is, a fairy who waves a magic wand. It's pure bullshit.
Well, bob, you're wrong here. There is a clear distinction between "designing agent" and "intelligent designer." The former is nondescript, and could be a mindless process (e.g. evolution), whereas the latter has the arbitrarily assigned attribute of "intelligence," which is quite obviously unnecessary.
This is also why ID is not really childish -- even a child can see that it fails, when it is exposed. Ask a child how a sphere/cylinder is made, and he will probably tell you that spherical shapes are designed. Ask him what shape will result from any clump of snow sent reeling down a hill, and that same child will tell you that a sphere/cylinder will result. Ask the child to compare the two answers, and he will invariably recognize that an "intelligent designer" is hardly necessary.
Technically, which is the very term I used to preface my comment, ID is plausible. It does not point to a "magic god fairy," but just to a process -- intelligent or otherwise, embodied or otherwise, ethereal or otherwise. This process is credited with "designing" that which we today observe, but that "design" could just as easily be accidental, or otherwise unintentional.
The "magic god fairy" comes in to play when ID enthusiasts, or theistically inclined persons, assign attributes or espoused doctrines to the "designing agent." This introduction quite plainly violates Occam's honored principle.
Okay. "Intelligent Design" is technically plausible, just valueless. It is trivially true that a designing agent may be responsible for the earliest form(s) of life on earth, but the mechanism by which that life continued and changed is evolution.
ReplyDeleteInsofar as there may have been a designing agent to have seeded this planet, assigning any attributes to such a thing is as much a waste of time as Theism at-large; there are an infinite combination of ways in which such a designing agent could potentially manifest itself or otherwise exist, and absent access to such an agent, the speculation is useless.
Why do I call it a "designing agent" rather than an "intelligent designer"? Simple. It needn't be 'intelligent' at all -- an ant can design, and construct a nest or bridge, a bee can design and construct a hive, a bird can design and construct a nest, and a beaver can design and construct a dam. Despite the ability to design and construct things, however, the thing doing the designing and/or constructing needn't actually be aware of just what, or how, it is doing the designing. That is, it needn't actually be intelligent.
Furthermore, in order to construct something, no matter the design, one must first have materials, which are not included in the ID discussion. While life itself may have been "seeded," or sprung from a small set of designed organisms, the source(s) of materials is not explained in any fashion whatsoever by ID, just like the source(s) of materials is not explained by the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, ID is really quite separate from the ToE in that ID seems to focus on abiogenesis, whereas the ToE focuses on diversification following abiogenesis.
So yeah, ID may have some merit, but it's devoid of value in the big picture, since without information concerning the designing agent, we're left to speculate as to how and/or why. By ignoring this possibility, and instead focusing on the mechanism for abiogenesis, we may yet answer the former question, even if we are unable to determine the answer to the latter. All ID does is to unnecessarily add a layer of complexity; even if we assumed there was a designing agent, we'd want to know how it designed, and how it formed. Naturally, ID can lead to an infinite regress of higher order designing agents, so again, the idea is better dropped than pursued -- especially when there is no evidence whatsoever that a designing agent exists.
That's right. There's no evidence of a designing agent. All we have is evidence of existence, evidence of process, and speculation as to motive or means beyond the processes already discovered.
Essentially, ID is as worthless as geocentrism. Geocentrism is plausible, as it is one of an infinite number of perfectly legitimate reference frames available to calculate celestial position, but it is ultimately worthless. It adds tremendous complexity...
[Don't believe me? Try calculating the relative position of Europa on New Year's Day 2010 by assuming the earth is stationary, versus attempting the same calculation by first assuming the sun is stationary, and then adjusting for the apparent position relative to the earth.]
...which is completely unnecessary, and which, when removed, greatly simplifies explanations, and allows for greater understanding, as through the development of Newton's [incorrect] Law of Universal Gravitation, and subsequent theories pertaining to gravity.
[Want a tougher example? Try to calculate the position of Europa on (Earth's) New Year's Day 2010 relative to the position of Titan, by assuming that Titan remains stationary.]
By dismissing geocentrism, or at least operating under the assumption that it is incorrect, we gained greater understanding regarding the motion of celestial bodies. By likewise dismissing ID, or at least operating under the assumption that it is incorrect, we can likewise gain greater understanding regarding the origin(s) of life.
--
Stan
Video 1: ID isn't religious, honest...
ReplyDeleteVideo 2: Can't beat Darwin so let's try and twist what he observed to fit our own ends...
Video 3: Please buy my book
Meh.
We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith.
ReplyDeleteTranslation:
WE ARE MORONS.
By likewise dismissing ID, or at least operating under the assumption that it is incorrect, we can likewise gain greater understanding regarding the origin(s) of life.
ReplyDeleteSince ID is childish bullshit, it's pretty darn easy to dismiss it, unless of course a person is a Christian retard.
Why do I call it a "designing agent" rather than an "intelligent designer"?
ReplyDeleteDesigning agent = magic god fairy.
Intelligent designer = magic god fairy.
Why use the same terminology idiots use? Call it what it is, a fairy who waves a magic wand. It's pure bullshit.
We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith.
ReplyDeleteTranslation:
WE ARE MORONS.
To be fair, Dan is using the royal "we."
Since ID is childish bullshit, it's pretty darn easy to dismiss it, unless of course a person is a Christian retard.
While I may agree with your sentiment, your statement is demonstrably false. It is actively pursued by adults, not children, and one needn't be either a Christian or a retard, much less both, to be its advocate. Of course, most of its advocates aim for greatness, and therefore embrace both Christianity and retardation...
Why do I call it a "designing agent" rather than an "intelligent designer"?
Designing agent = magic god fairy.
Intelligent designer = magic god fairy.
Why use the same terminology idiots use? Call it what it is, a fairy who waves a magic wand. It's pure bullshit.
Well, bob, you're wrong here. There is a clear distinction between "designing agent" and "intelligent designer." The former is nondescript, and could be a mindless process (e.g. evolution), whereas the latter has the arbitrarily assigned attribute of "intelligence," which is quite obviously unnecessary.
This is also why ID is not really childish -- even a child can see that it fails, when it is exposed. Ask a child how a sphere/cylinder is made, and he will probably tell you that spherical shapes are designed. Ask him what shape will result from any clump of snow sent reeling down a hill, and that same child will tell you that a sphere/cylinder will result. Ask the child to compare the two answers, and he will invariably recognize that an "intelligent designer" is hardly necessary.
Technically, which is the very term I used to preface my comment, ID is plausible. It does not point to a "magic god fairy," but just to a process -- intelligent or otherwise, embodied or otherwise, ethereal or otherwise. This process is credited with "designing" that which we today observe, but that "design" could just as easily be accidental, or otherwise unintentional.
The "magic god fairy" comes in to play when ID enthusiasts, or theistically inclined persons, assign attributes or espoused doctrines to the "designing agent." This introduction quite plainly violates Occam's honored principle.
--
Stan